Loading...
1986-12-23ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN HALL DECEMBER 23RD, 1986 = 7:-00 P.M MIDDLEBUSH ROAD AGENDA WAPP. FALLS, NY PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Appeal #953, at the request of Kurt Reiner, seeking a variance of Article IV, §404.31 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for the enlargement of a legal two (2) family (non -conforming) dwelling on property located on 116 Diddell Road, and being Parcel #6359-04-523455, in the Town of Wappinger. 2. Appeal #962, at the request of Juliana Garofalo, seeking a variance of Article IV, §421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for a permitted caretakers home to become a rental unit on a temporary basis on property located on Smith Crossing Road, and being Parcel #6259-01-110650, in the Town of Wappinger. 3. Appeal #964, at the request of Jest Reality Corp., seeking a variance of Article IV, §412 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for the issuance of a building permit for a new dwelling on a private road on property located on Locust Drive, and being Parcel #6257-04-916037, in the Town of Wappinger. 4. Appeal #965, at the request of Jest Reality Corp., seeking a variance of Article IV, §412 of the Town fo Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for the issuance of a building permit for a new dwelling on a private road on property located on Locust Drive, and being Parcel #6257-04-915021, in the Town of Wappinger. 5. Appeal #966, at the request of Nick Clark, seeking a variance of Article IV, §421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for the issuance of a building permit for an addition with a 15 foot sideyard where 20 feet is reugired on property located on 33 Sucich Place, and being Parcel #6157-02-805621, in the Town of Wappinger. 6. Appeal #967, at the request of Ferdinand Zipprich, seeking a variance of Article IV, §421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for a garage with a 10 foot sideyard setback where 25 feet is required on property located on 332 Myers Corners Road, and being Parcel #6358-01-299560, in the Town of Wappinger. 7. Appeal #968, at the request of Carl Swenson, seeking a variance of Article IV, §422 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for an additional use of an existing building located in the AI -2A Zone on property located on New Hackensack Road, and being Parcel #6158-02-987920, in the Town of Wappinger. 8. Appeal #970, at the request of John Vorndran, seeking a variance of Article IV, §430 & §450 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for the extension of time to begin construction on a lot which has had Special Use Permit and Site Plan approval on property located on Old All Angels Hill Road, and being Parcel #6257-02- 950722, in the Town of Wappinger. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. Appeal #900, at the request of John Durcan, seeking a Special Use Permit of Article IV, §421, 118 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to convert an existing 3 family dwelling, which was built prior to 1963 and which contains over 3,000 s/f of useable floor area to a six (6) unit apartment building on property located on Route 9D. and being Parcel #6157-01-136640, in the Town of Wappinger. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECEMBER 23RD, 1986 - 7:00 P.M. MINUTES TOWN HALL MIDDLEBUSH ROAD WAPP. FALLS, NY The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Tuesday, December 23rd, 1986, at the Town Hall, Middlebush Road, Wappinger Falls, New York, beginning at 7:00 P.M.. Members Present: Mr. Caballero, Chairman Mr. Landolfi Mr. Cortellino Mr. Hirkala Mr. Urciuoli Others Present: Ms. Linda Berberich, Secretary Mr. Hans Gunderud, Zoning Administrator The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M.. Mr. Caballero asked if the abutting property owners had been notified. Ms. Berberich replied that all of the green cards had been returned except for the Swenson appeal, which he has 2 abutting property owners and Mr. Swenson has a letter from one. Mr. Caballero asked for a motion to accept the Minutes of the November 18th, 1986 Minutes. Vote: All ayes. The motion was carried. Mr. Caballero explained how the meeting would be conducted. Mr. Caballero read the first appeal: Appeal #953, at the request of Kurt Reiner, seeking a variance of Article IV, §404.31 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for the enlargement of a legal two family (non conforming) dwelling on property located on 116 Diddell Road, and being Parcel #6359-04-523455, in the Town of Wappinger. Kurt Reiner, the appellant was present. Mr. Reiner stated, basically, I have a 2 family house thats legal non -conforming, its been 2 family for many years, before zoning and we wish to add an addition on to encompass a new kitchen because the existing kitchen is very, very tiny and family room and 2 car garage for our own personal use. Because of the legal status of the property we need a variance to do that. As noted, I submitted plans to the Building Inspector and as noted it will not in any way effect sideline requirements, it is a large piece of property, it is 2j acres. We appeal for a variance to that because... that is required. Mr. Caballero asked, did you understand that tech memo in reference to what you are required to do under use variance to have the Board entertain a granting of a variance? The uniqueness, reasonable return, character. Mr. Landolfi made a motion to accept the Minutes of the November meeting. Mr. Urciuoli seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes. The motion was carried. Mr. Caballero explained how the meeting would be conducted. Mr. Caballero read the first appeal: Appeal #953, at the request of Kurt Reiner, seeking a variance of Article IV, §404.31 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for the enlargement of a legal two family (non conforming) dwelling on property located on 116 Diddell Road, and being Parcel #6359-04-523455, in the Town of Wappinger. Kurt Reiner, the appellant was present. Mr. Reiner stated, basically, I have a 2 family house thats legal non -conforming, its been 2 family for many years, before zoning and we wish to add an addition on to encompass a new kitchen because the existing kitchen is very, very tiny and family room and 2 car garage for our own personal use. Because of the legal status of the property we need a variance to do that. As noted, I submitted plans to the Building Inspector and as noted it will not in any way effect sideline requirements, it is a large piece of property, it is 2j acres. We appeal for a variance to that because... that is required. Mr. Caballero asked, did you understand that tech memo in reference to what you are required to do under use variance to have the Board entertain a granting of a variance? The uniqueness, reasonable return, character. Page -2- December 23rd, 1986 Mr. Reiner answered, I did fill out a form regarding the, which I believe that I gave to you which addressed those particular issues. Mr. Caballero stated, what I am trying to say to you is that I think you have addressed it but I don't see that what you just said now, to stop at that point that you have proved all those points to this Board, so it is going to be difficult for them to grant you a variance on that information. Mr. Reiner answered, basically undue hardship in that the house was built many years ago and was not of adequate size, it did not have a kitchen, it did not have plumbing, it did not have running water when it was first built.and it is definitely a hardship for my family. I have 2 children and one more on the way. Mr. Caballero stated, it says here that this is a 2 family home. Mr. Reiner answered, yes, and we rent the upstairs out. Mr. Cortellino asked, is the upstairs kitchen adequate? Mr. Reiner answered, it is adequate for them, yes. Mr. Cortellino stated, the what is in front of us is really, do you have the use of your property, a reasonable return for the use of your property, not necessarily as a 2 family home, but as you as an owner, do you have a reasonable return on your property. If you woud revert back to a 2 family home you would have more than adequate room, you just finished saying that the other kitchen would be adequate. Mr. Reiner stated, well, if we wanted the kitchen to be upstairs. It wouldn't be very practical. Yes, we could change the existing use and throw out the tenants, so to speak, and totally restructure the whole house but that would be more of a hardship than adding an addition on, that would be more costly than adding the addition. Mr. Hirkala stated, but if you reverted back to a one family house you wouldn't even have to be here because you can add onto that house without any approvals. Mr. Reiner stated, right, but we couldn't afford to do that. It is a 2 family house, we bought it as such because we needed the income to afford the house. Mr. Gunderud stated, the point that I wanted to make, under the section that Mr. Reiner is here, its not technically a use variance. That section is on the expansion of a non -conforming use, it says that it shall, such structure may be increased except that when authorized by Special Permit.of the Zoning Board of Appeals, so its under that §404.31. I don't think under that section that a hardship has to be proven by the applicant in the case of a Special Use Permit. It is sort of like the Villa Borghese was here several months ago, the facility existed many, many years ago, prior to zoning and just because the zoning district was formed that made it non -conforming in that area if it had been in another district of the Town it would be able to be expanded, so it is by Special Permit of the Zoning Board of Appeals, not necessarily a use variance or even an area variance. Mr. Cortellino stated, if I am not mistaken expansions of legally non -conforming use really only applies to commercial ventures, that there is no provision for granting expansions of legally non -conforming uses other than business ventures. Page -3- December 23rd, 1986 ,r Mr. Hirkala stated, I have a problem with what you are saying Hans. The section of the ordinance says that there will be no expansion of a non -conforming use except a retail business which is allowed 507 period. It doesn't say, he is looking for a variance from §404.31, he is not allowed to expand. Mr. Gunderud stated, it says, if you read the sentence, the beginning of the sentence says a non -conforming building or structure shall not be enlarged or placed in different... of the area...... except that authorized by Special Permit by the Zoning Board of Appeals, a building containing non -conforming retail or service business use may be enlarged or extended. That is the case with all things in zoning. When people want to do something' and zoning says they can't that is why they come to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Urciuoli asked, how long have you owned the property? Mr. Reiner answered, 3 years. Mr. Urciuoli asked, you have lived there the whole 3 years? Mr. Reiner answered, yes. Mr. Urciuoli asked, how many square feet are in your apartment? Mr. Reiner answered, about 1,000 s/f where we are and about 1,000 s/f that we rent out. When we bought it it was above our means just to buy that much of a house as a single family house but because of the income the bank let us take that much of a mortgage. The bank wouldn't have given it to us nor would they allow us to take it now if we didn't have that income. I do think here that the spirit of the zoning law was that perhaps, in our situation our use of it should not be changed without a great deal of examination but we are not changing the use of the property at all. We are simply maing it more reasonable to use becuase it is a hardship, I even brought, for the Board's pleasure a picture of our kitchen just to show you what a hardship my wife feels it is. Mr. Urciuoli asked, of the addition, how many square feet are you adding on? Mr. Reiner answered, it is 900 s/f. Basically our kitchen we plan to turn into another bathroom because it is about large enough for that. Mr. Urciuoli asked, that 900 s/f, does that include the garage? Mr. Reiner answered, no, that is besides the garage. There is no garage now at this point. There used to be a large barn on the property but that fell down years ago so we have facilities for storage or........ Mr. Cortellino asked, a kitchen 30 x 30? Mr. Reiner answered, no, a kitchen and family room, eat in kitchen and family room, there is no dining room. Mr. Landolfi asked Mr. Gunderud, overall then, it appears that he is exceeding the 507 by a drastic number, in fact if these numbers that he is giving us are accurate can you verify those numbers in some way? Mr. Reiner stated, the whole house is a little over 2,000 s/f. Mr. Landolfi asked, based on what you just said without even counting the garage, you have 900 plus the garage..... Page -4- December 23rd, 1986 Mr. Gunderud stated, the 50% is basically for retail or service business expansion. That section of the ordinance. Mr. Cortellino asked, is there a basement in this structure? Mr. Reiner answered, there is part of, about half of the house there is a basement. It is a low basement with a dirt floor. Mr. Cortellino asked, if the kitchen so small why is there a washer and dryer in the kitchen? Mr. Reiner answered, because that is the only place that we could put it. Mr. Urciuoli asked, what is the size of your lot? Mr. Reiner answered, 2J acres. So, at the closest I believe, with the addition on there the closest that any part of the building will be adjacent property line will be well over 100 feet. It certainly doesn't effect any of the neighbors, at least as far as I can tell. Mr. Urciuoli asked, so you are going to have roughly a 2,900 s/f building on 2J acres, plus the garage? Mr. Reiner answered, yes, but as I said, the garage we really do need because we don't have any storage. Our basement is a dirt floor and it has, they aren't even beams, they are little tree trunks. Mr. Caballero asked, are you satisfied that you presented your case as you wanted to present it to the Board? Mr. Reiner answered, I think so, unless you feel that there is anything that I am missing that you feel we should discuss. As far as fitting in with the character of the neighborhood, it is a neighborhood where the place across the street is a large farm, 2 doors down from me there is a large horse farm, which is an active stable, just down the road a little bit from that there is a large farm house that has many apartments in it, I am not sure how many, but, it is a very much of a mixed neighborhood, yet everything is comfortably intergrated, most of the properties are a good size and I definitely feel that it would not at all attract from the character or the appearance of the neighborhood in any way, in fact it would enhance our neighbors property, in fact it would be a larger more expensive house. Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against this appeal. There was no one present. Mr. Caballero read a letter from an abutting property owner, Mr. D'Antoni dated 12/10/86. Letter on file. Mr. Urciuoli asked, where does this Mr. D'Antoni live in relationship to your house? Mr. Reiner answered, he lives across the street, just to the left side if you are facing the street from my front door. I just might note that he also has a multi family house, single family house that was added onto, he has I think one apartment, I am not sure. This is news to me. I didn't speak to him, I tried to call the Page -5- December 23rd, 1986 neighbors. He may not even know what my intentions were, I never did talk to him about it, about expanding it. I find it kind of odd since he has added onto his own home. I think he pre-exists the zoning and I am sure he is legal to. Mr. Hirkala asked, are you prepared to document the hardship? Mr. Reiner asked, as far as? Mr. Hirkala answered, you stated that the bank wouldn't give you the mortgage without the 2 family and that you could continue that? Of course you understand that under the law you have to prove that, you can't just say it. Mr. Reiner answered, I suppose I could apply for another mortgage, but under the current terms of what the bank will loan you as far as the value of the house, and how much I could qualify for the mortgage, I think probably I could get a letter from my bank documenting that based on my income and based on the property, the income from the property. Mr. Caballero stated, I think what Mike is asking is do you have documentation at this time to show the Board that you have a financial hardship? Mr. Reiner answered, no. I did not bring any of my financial statements with me no. I didn't think that that would be a requirement at this time. Mr. Caballero stated, I will point to you on the tech that you were given and on #2, reasonable return. Mr. Urciuoli stated, I think that he has more of a case on uniqueness then a reasonable return. Mr. Caballero stated, you have to satisfy all 3 of them, not one. Mr. Reiner stated, it is not that I am trying to make more apartments out of it and get more income from it. I am not really applying for a variance for the use that I have. I am not trying to change the use in any way. It seems to me that perhaps, the way that the zoning laws are written they give you a great deal of latitude in determining the spirit of the ordinance in that I don't think it was given to prevent homeowners from making their house a little more comfortable. Is the purpose of it that or is it to protect the neighborhood from unwise use of the property? I think that the purpose here is really, it seemed odd to me that I should have to get a variance to add a kitchen on when in no way was it effecting the other properties in my neighborhood are used as a large farm with several out buildings on it that have been rented out and certainly. Mr. Cortellino stated, one of the questions you asked, what is the purpose of the zoning. One of the things is to get legally non -conforming uses back to being conforming uses and one of the reasons for alot of restrictions between non -conforming to sort of not continue its use. For instance, a business goes out of business, legally non -conforming another business can't come in. Only a business of its type or of a higher level. One of the things about zoning is to get conforming to the zoning ordinance, not to the spirit not to the letter of the law, but to get the neighborhoods back to what it is zoned for and you are legally non -conforming its use can continue but the Zoning Ordinance would prefer, it wasn't encouraged but reverted back to single family residence. Mr. Landolfi asked, do understand correctly that you bought the house under the premise that you had to have tenants in the house? Mr. Reiner answered, that is right. Page -6- December 23rd, 1986 Mr. Landolfi asked, were you represented by legal counsel at the closing? Mr. Reiner answered, yes. Mr. Landolfi asked, did your legal counsel advise you in any way relative to any kind of zoning matters? Mr. Reiner answered, just in that it was, he made me check that it was a legal non- conforming dwelling and that I could rent it and get the income from it. The bank also required that. The intention was never to convert it to a single family house because its, the way the house is built and the layout of the house was not practical to do that. It was never really designed as a, it was added onto, the house is 100 and some years old and it was added onto, it was put up many years ago and it suffered through 2 fires and the, in order to make it a really exceptional single family house it would require alot of renovation, and extreme amount that would be beyond my scope. Mr. Cortellino asked, do you have a floor plan of the house? Mr. Reiner answered, I didn't see it was required so I didn't bring one. Mr. Caballero asked for a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Urciuoli made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes. The motion was carried. Mr. Caballero asked if there is any discussion between the Board. There was none. Mr. Caballero asked for a motion. Mr. Urciouli stated, I make a motion that the variance be granted.and I will tell you why. Mr. Reiner isn't expanding the non -conforming use, he is not making it any, he is not adding, I feel another apartment to it. I feel the uniqueness in tying to live into 1,000 s/f is kind of unique. He is only adding to his own living quarters. He has more than sufficient property out there, 2J acres. He doesn't need any sideyard, frontyard, rearyard setbacks. I think that it is pretty obvious that removing a tenant would pose financial hardship and I don't think it would be detrimental to the character of the neighborhood. I would like to put a stipulation on it that at no time would the Board entertain the expansion of the upstairs apartment for any reason, and that is my reason for granting the variance. Mr. Landolfi stated, I second that motion. Mr: Cortellino asked to speak before the vote. Right now, looking at the plans one thing, an oversight on my part is we never asked why we have the staggered boxes, the addition, there is plenty of room to the right, why, I can see perhaps in the future someone coming lets fill out and make a rectangle, 3 boxes staggered, we have nothing to do with the architecture and what not, I am concerned about somebody using it as an excuse in the future saying to fill it out. Page -7- December 23rd, 1986 Mr. Caballero stated, they would still have to come in for a variance. Mr. Urciuoli stated, and we could handle it at that time. Mr. Landolfi stated, I feel there is the provisions in place, I hope, to prevent that from happening. Mr. Urciuoli stated, the reason I made the motion is to prevent coming back a year from now expanding the tenants apartment another 900 s/f or something like that. As long as we are maintaining it this way I really don't have any problem wtih it. Vote: Mr. Caballero - nay Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye Mr. Urciuoli - aye The motion was carried. Mr. Caballero read the next appeal: Appeal 4962, at the request of Juliana Garofalo, seeking a variance of Article IV, §421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for a permitted caretakers home to become a rental unit on a temporary basis on property located on Smith Crossing Road, and being Parcel 446259-01-110650, in the Town of Wappinger. Mr. Caballero stated, Appeal 44962 has been withdrawn from our agenda. Did he call you Linda to withdraw the appeal. Ms. Berberich stated, I was out but I had a note on my desk saying that it was withdrawn. Mr. Caballero asked, at the request of the appellant Appeal 4962 was withdrawn? Mr. Landolfi asked, can I assume that that is gone. Mr. Caballero asked, withdrawn all together? Ms. Berberich answered, yes. Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone in the audience that was interested in this appeal. There was no one present. Mr. Caballero read the next appeal: Appeal 44964, at the request of Jest Reality, seeking a variance of Article IV, §412 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for the issuance of a building permit for a new dwelling on a private road on property lcoated on Locust Drive, and being Parcel 446257-04-916037, in the Town of Wappinger. and: Appeal 44965, at the request of Jest Reality Corp, seeking a variance of Article IV, §412 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for the issuance of a building permit for a new dwelling on a private road on property located on Locust Drive, and being Parcel 446257-04-915021, in the Town of Wappinger. Page -8- December 23rd, 1986 Ms. Berberich stated that both of those appeals were withdrawn, you should have a letter. I spoke to him on the phone and he sent a letter. Mr. Caballero read the next appeal: Appeal #966, at the request of Nick Clark, seeking a variance of Article IV, §421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for the issuance of a building permit for an addition with a 15 foot sideyard where 20 feet is required on property located on 33 Sucich Place, and being Parcel X66157-02-805621, in the Town of Wappinger. Nick Clark, the appellant was present. Mr. Clark stated, we are presently located in any area that is zoned R-20 and I have a 2 bedroom home just under 1,000 s/f of living space. My family is growing, we have on child and another on the way and we have 2 bedrooms, a living room and a kitchen. We fell that we need additional space in the house and we propose an addition of 871 s/f consisting of living area and 2 bedrooms and additional garage. We are in a rather unique situation, our lot is pie shaped and one front corner of the garage will extend over the 200 foot sideyard. I don't know if you have a copy of the site plan, but I think it will show the shape of the property and the fact that this front corner of the garage will be 15 feet from the sideyard, the rest of the addition will fall within the allowable, we just have the one corner that would be extending beyond that. We feel that we will be in the spirit of the zoning law in the fact that our next door neighbor on that side has built on a double lot, in the center of the lot, his house is approxi- mately 60 feet from my house and we still have a good distance between the 2 homes. We will be keeping with the asthetics of the rest of the neighborhood. At present we have one of the smallest houses on the street as most of the others have additions put on. 2 car garages, additional living space. This would give us a 2 car garage for our own personal use. Mr. Cortellino asked, how long is this addition? Mr. Clark answered, it is approximately 30 feet. That is just off the top of my head. 291 feet.This is from the back of the house. Mr. Cortellino asked, from the front of the house, the shaded area, the house is setback 30 feet? Mr. Clark answered, correct. Mr. Cortellino asked., now, how far back does that shaded area go? Mr. Clark answered, 57 feet, which is total from the home. Mr. Corte' -lino stated, call it 60 feet. Mr. Hirkala asked, how many s/f do you have in the house now? Mr. Clark answered, just under 1,000. Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone in the audience that wanted to speak either for or against this appeal. There was no one.present. Mr. Caballero asked, is there any reason why this addition could not be set back further so you wouldn't enfringe on the zoning ordinance? Page -9- December 23rd, 1986 Mr. Clark answered, the only way that we could do that is to eliminate adding on an additional garage. We would like to have a 2 car garage so we could get both vehicles in. We have a one car garage. Mr. Caballero stated, it only looks like you are enfringing on the one corner in the front. If that whole was moved back you may be able to get in there without enfringing on the setbacks. Mr. Clark stated, if you look at the floor plan ismove itthe backliving amarea afraidwill thatinline with the back of the present garage. If wewere to would have to short of a space to be useable as a garage. Mr. Caballero asked, but if you did move it back you could make the expansion? Mr. Clark stated, it is conceivable that I haven't, I don't know what the layout would be come and I might wind up with a ten foot long garage that which isn't practical for uses for a car. I think asthetically... Mr. Caballero stated, if you move this that way, back, you don't end up with a ten foor garage. You would end up with the garage further back then the front of the house. Mr. Clark stated, yes, but then the garage would enfringe on what we had hoped to use as living space. Mr. Caballero stated, you can add onto the side of that living space to make up for that enfringement. In other words, what I am saying to you is there is an alternative way of doing this without enfringing on that 5 foot. Mr. Clark stated, we can't go to this side because of the septic system -so we are over as far as we can. Mr. Caballero asked, and you can't go further back? Mr. Clark answered, I suppose we could go further back, except financially I can't afford to make it larger than that. Mr. Caballero asked if there was any questions from the Board. Mr. Hirkala asked, where is your septic system? Mr. Clark answered, it is located, approximately right here. The tank is here. We can't come over this way, the fields are out behind this piece, behind the addition, but because of the location of the tank and lay of the property, the property is on a slope in the back which precludes moving the tank back farther. We have spoken to the neighbors bordering us and they have indicated that they have no objections to it. We certainly don't want to do anything that isn't in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood. Mr. Caballero asked, are you satisfied that you presented your case thoroughly to the Zoning Board of Appeals? Mr. Clark answered, unless there are any questions that you gentlemen may have. Mr. Cortellino made a motion to close the public hearing. Page -10- December 23rd, 1986 Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes. The motion was carried. Mr. Caballero asked for any discussion. Mr. Cortellino stated, I move that the variance be denied. There are other choices available and granting it would be a form of a re -zoning. There was no second on the motion. Mr. Caballero stated, the motion does not get a second, do I have a motion to approve the variance. Mr. Urciuoli stated, I make a motion that the variance be granted. I don't feel a 5 yard setback on a corner, a very small proportion of the whole garage is any major, it is not going to change the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Cortellino asked, what is your foundation based on the criteria for a variance so I can make a decision. Mr. Hirkala stated, can I point something out. They are in violation on the front end of the setback. It is 35 feet. Mr. Clark stated, the house is 25 years old. Mr. Caballero asked, this section goes back a little bit, is that 5 feet? Mr. Clark answered, no, it is approximately 2 feet. Mr. Hirkala stated, what you are looking at is 30 feet, you need 35. This section here is in violation which is existing. If he adds over here he is still in violation. So he is adding on so the addition will be in violation also. Mr. Clark stated, the road does curve by the house. I would assume the line would be measured by this. Also, we could well be within that 35 feet. Mr. Caballero stated, so you have an enfringement on the front and one on the side. Mr. Hirkala stated, I have a problem with the existing 30 feet because you are probably non -conforming, I have got no problem with that. We have to consider the fact that what we are asking for is not only a variance on the side lot, we don't know if that front lot is going to be conforming which would be 35 feet, what you are doing is adding to the non -conformity of the existing structure. Mr. Urciuoli stated, the addition is 2 feet 3 inches back from the existing wall. Mr. Hirkala stated, yes, but that 30 feet isn't from the closest portion to the road. It is from the other side of the house which is further back from the road. Mr. Gunderud stated, I didn't measure the house out there but there is a provision in the Zoning Ordinance that says that irrespective of the setback requirements there is a mark conformity of the frontyards of the houses in an area than I can issue a permit Page -11- December 23rd, 1986 without having to go for a variance. To my memory, and I have to measure each one really to see, Sucich Place I am familiar with and that was built as a development and all of the houses are pretty much lined up. Mr. Hirkala stated, but what I am trying to say is the variance request that he is asking for a sidelot setback but the plans that he is showing us is also building to close to the frontline setback. Mr. Cortellino stated, he needs 2 variances tonight is what Mike is saying. Mr. Gunderud stated, there is a section here that says that if there is a conformity of the setbacks, whether it is less than or more than the required that wouldn't need a variance. I didn't consider the frontyard as requiring a variance because it is lining up with the existing buildings, it is lining up with other buildings on the block. Mr. Hirkala stated, I hear you but he is asking for an addition onto something that is non -conforming. I have no problem with whats conforming. I have no problem with the existing structure. What I am wondering is if we aren't creating an illegal situation by allowing it to go ahead without a variance on the front setback also. Mr. Cortellino stated, you could give the variance and interpret it for the front. Mr. Caballero stated, I have a problem with it because there are alternative ways of making the addition on the house without enfringing on the ordinance. I have a motion on the floor and a second. Mrs. Clark asked to speak. Mr. Landolfi made a motion to reopen the public hearing. Mr. Caballero seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes. The motion was carried. Mrs. Clark stated, most of the other houses on the street have 2 car garages and all the houses are built right up front. The garage is right next to the garage so if we were to move the garage back it wouldn't go with the rest of the neighbors. Mr. Clark stated, we would have the unusual looking house. Mrs. Clark stated, whereas if we just added onto the garage and had the house just straight where it doesn't go like this which is kind of odd anyway..... Mr. Clark added, then it would conform with the asthetics of the neighborhood. Mrs. Clark stated, if we use our other alternatives it wouldn't go with the other homes in the neighborhood. Mr. Hirkala stated, my leaning is to grant the variance, because I took a ride past there and I see what you mean, your house is one of the smallest ones on the lot and I think it falls within the intent of the ordinance to put an addition on. I also sympathize with his position that there is another way to do it and a straight line in a front of all the houses isn't necessarily a good way to go either because we have shown that Page -12- December 23rd, 1986 on our ordinance in a recently passed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which changed the setbacks on Route 9 for commercial buildings from 75 feet to 50 feet at the discretion of the Planning Board so that we can vary the setbacks. So what you are saying is relative to whoever is looking at it. It doesn't hold water as far as an argument is concerned because it depends on who is looking at it. Some people prefer a straight line and some people don't. My concern right now is of legality of approving this variance with the plans that we have in front of us. That is my concern because we could well be giving you a variance for one thing and creating an illegal situation another way. Mr. Gunderud stated, I found that section, §413.4. It actually says in here if on one side of the street within 150 feet of any lot there is a pronounced uniformity of a line of the depths of the frontyard greater or less than the required minimum depth specified in the schedule of regulations for residential districts a frontyard shall be required in connection with any new buildings which shall conform .... as practical with those existing on adjacent lots. Mr. Hirkala stated, there we see the opposite of what the intent now is as opposed to what it was when this was written. The Town Board 2 years ago changed that at the request of the Planning Board. That doesn't necessarily mean that you don't need a variance, that just means that a new structure the alignment will be in proximity. Mr. Gunderud stated, if the buidling on either side are similar distance to the street back then his shall be the same distance back. Mr. Hirkala stated, his building is existing. Mr. Urciuoli stated, I am confused on which motion we are talking about. Mr. Caballero stated, the motion that was made by George. Mr. Urciuoli stated, to grant the variance. Mr. Landolfi stated, if you amend that I will second it. Mr. Uricuoli stated, I will amend that to Hans's reviewing, the frontyard setback. Vote: Mr. Caballero - nay Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Cortellino - nay Mr. Hirkala - nay Mr. Urciuoli - aye The motion was not carried. Mr. Hirkala stated, I am voting no because I disagree with the interpretation, I think we have a problem with the setback. Mr. Clark asked, do we have to option of applying for a variance for the frontyard setback also? Where can we go with it from here? Mr. Caballero stated, you have the option of redrawing it without enfringing on the sideyard variance. Mr. Clark stated, but it seems like the frontyard is what really caused the problem and if we had applied perhaps, for the variance requesting a frontyard setback also.... Page -13- December 23rd, 1986 Mr. Caballero stated, Hans will review that and maybe you can recommend for them to come back in with the front if that is the case, both of them at the same time. Mr. Hirkala stated, my personal opinion is that the frontyard setback and the addition has to conform to todays ordinance and todays ordinance is 35 feet. Mr. Gunderud stated, that isn't the way that it has been enforced over the years. In some of the older neighborhoods where there are houses either, some houses are setback, for instance on Central Avenue, the houses there are set very far back, much further than the required 50 feet and the new houses built in there, we don't accept the 50 feet, we make the people build the houses back in line with the existing houses. Mr. Hirkala stated, you are talking new construction. We are talking addition. There frontline is already established for that house, does that mean you continue that front line forever and ever until you hit the side lot. That doesn't mean that. That means that when you put a new structure up you have to try to maintain some form of that front setback that is existing in the neighborhood. That doesn't necessarily mean that you do that with an addition. There frontage is going to be extended how many feet? You are going widen the front of that house how many feet? Mr. Clark answered, 10 feet. Mr. Hirkala stated, that is 10 foot they are adding on. Now, what I maintain is that 10 foot has nothing to do with what he is talking about. Mr. Clark stated, the curviture of the road in front of the house, actually as you get more out to the end the house gets further away from the road. Mr. Hirkala stated, then maybe your answer is to rethink it, drop that back a few feet and maybe you won't need as many as 15 feet because of the shape of the lot and you might fall within the 35 feet with that measurement. Mr. Urciuoli stated, but we are not talking about the frontyard setback right now. The variance that is being asked for is a sideyard setback. We haven't determined whether they need a frontyard setback. I understand what you are saying but we are not talking about a frontyard setback. You are saying no because of a frontyard setback, the applicant is on a sideyard setback. Mr. Hirkala stated, I have a plan in front of me that shows, in my opinion, a plan in front of me that shows 2 violations.and the Zoning Administrator says that there is only one. I happen to disagree with that. Mr. Urciuoli stated, I don't know how you can enter that into the..... Mr. Caballero stated, the motion to grant the variance was not carried, the vote was 3-2 to deny the variance. I personally denied the variance on the basis that there is alternative ways of making that addition into that home without enfringing on the ordinance. That was my decision. The motion has been denied. If you have further information at a future time, new evidence and you want to re -appeal we would be glad to entertain you. Mr. Clark answered, we would like to certainly because we want to pursue this and we hope that, obviously your power to interpret the Zoning Law and also to grant variances we would hope that you would see in our favor to grant a variance rather than interpret it as it exists and make us conform to that rather than perhaps vary that. Page -14- December 23rd, 1986 Mrs. Clark stated, most of the homes on the street are so close together, we are the farthest away from anybody. Mr. Caballero asked, how is that going to change the voting? Mr. Urciuoli answered, because if they clarify their frontyard setback requirements and lets say that they find out that they have their 35 feet so they do not need a frontyard setback it changes Mike's vote. Mr. Caballero stated, then they have new information and they can re -appeal. Mr. Landolfi asked, didn't you amend that to include that if Hans went out and did an inspection, an on site inspection and if in fact it was within would that do it or not? Mr. Hirkala stated, that is not the amendment that I heard. Mr. Clark stated, that is the way that I understood it. Mr. Hirkala stated, the amendment I heard was that he was going to clarify the alignment of the houses, not the distance of the setback. Mr. Landolfi stated, I think he meant to say it, maybe he wasn't clear enough. Mr. Urciuoli stated, my amendment was, and actually you said it and I said yes I would amend it to that, that if Hans goes out and finds that there is no setback requirement needed, in other words they have their 35 feet period, they have 35 feet then.... Mr. Hirkala stated, that is not the amendement that I heard. The vote has been made. Mr. Landolfi stated, I think there was a misunderstanding is what I am saying. Mr. Cortellino stated, I am willing to re -open the voting. I will still keep my vote but maybe, I don't want to make things difficult for the appellants. Mr. Caballero asked, did we understand each other fully? Mr. Urciuoli stated, let me do it again. I make a motion the variance be granted. Mr. Caballero stated, the variance has been denied on a 3-2 vote. Mr. Landolfi stated, I think there was a misunderstanding. Mr. Caballero stated, I will entertain a motion that we re -vote on this appeal. Mr. Landolfi stated that he would make the motion. Mr. Urciuoli seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes. The motion was carried. Mr. Caballero asked, do I have a motion to grant this variance? Page -15- December 23rd, 1986 Mr. Urciuoli stated, I make a motion that the variance be granted based on the applicant is asking for a 25% sideyard setback relief and that 25% which is a 5 foot setback where a 20 foot setback is required is only on a very small portion of the total addition that is being put up. In view of the amount of the variance of the setback that is required in order to conform to zoning I believe that a practical difficulty would be involved in re -designing the addition based on the amount of the variance that is actually required to put it up as it is presented to us. Being that there seems to be some difficulty in the clarification of the frontyard setback if our Zoning Administrator goes out and does a site inspection and determines that the addition part is within the 35 foot frontyard setback requirement that the variance be granted. Mr. Landolfi stated, I will second it Mr. Chairman. I am seconding it because I did an on site inspection of the property and I agree, it is one of our older developments and I also agree with Mike, you can't just let it go on forever. The front line, if you will, but in their particular case they are on the curve and it is without a doubt the smallest house out there, and by the way, in fairness to him, it is quite well kept in light of what is going on. I see they are acting in good faith and I do see a definite harship on their part so that is why I am seconding that motion. Vote: Mr. Caballero - nay Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Cortellino - nay Mr. Hirkala - aye Mr. Urciuoli - aye Mr. Hirkala stated, I vote aye based on the front, based on the end of the motion that the frontyard setback on the addition be within present setback conformity under the present ordinance. The motion was carried. Mr. Caballero stated, you have been granted a variance subject to the conditions. Mr. Hirkala stated, if that setback isn't right you are going to have to re -design. Mr. Clark answered, we understand that. Mr. Cortellino made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Urciuoli seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes. The motion was carried. Mr. Caballero asked for a 5 minute break. The break was called at 8:00 P.M.. The meeting was called back to order at 8:06 P.M.. Mr. Caballero read the next appeal: Appeal #967, at the request of Ferdinand Zipprich, seeking a variance of Article IV, §421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for a garage with a 10 foot sideyard setback where 25 feet is required on property located on 332 Myers Corners Road and being Parcel #6358-01-299560, in the Town of Wappinger. Page -16- December 23rd, 1986 Ferdinand Zipprich, the appellant was present. Mr. Zipprich stated, my property is located on Myers Corners Road and old development that is very narrow lot. I would like to make an upstairs addition to my property adding the living space and also an office space in order to make better use of the property. At the same time I have a one car garage, that is on one side of the lot where already is non -conforming, it is19J feet at this point, but like I said, it is an old lot and at that point .... The addition off the garage would only be the heighth of the garage. There will be no living space on top of it. It is just a garage. I have a site plan with me, also a floor plan, and of the addition. I feel that the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would produce undue hardship.... the property and bring the building up to its value commen.... with other surrounding properties of equal land in the area. I fell that the hardship is unique and is not shared by all properties alike in the vicinity of this property. The location of the existing building and its orientation on the site,;the slope of the land, rock outcroppings and the location of the well and septic fields make it impractical to change the building in the other direction. Point 3, I feel that the variance would observe the spirit of the ordinance, it would not change the character of the district because the design is in keeping with the existing character of the district and does not impact the privacy of the surrounding houses. The neighbor on the side where the variance is sought, the house is about 125 feet away, the garage is about 40 feet away. I feel that there is no enfringement on that neighbor at all, especially since there is no living space on top of that garage that I would like to put on. I believe the extension would enhance the value of this property as well as the surrounding properties. Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this appeal. Richard Savatelli - 330 Myers Corners Road. I am the next door neighbor to Mr. Zipprich. We have no objection at all to his being granted a variance. He is a good neighbor and he is maticulous with his home and his property. I feel anything that he would do would be good for the area, complementary to the neighborhood and we have no problem with it at all. Mr.'Caballero asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak. There was no one present. Mr. Cortellino asked, you are a C.P.A.? Mr. Zipprich answered, yes sir. Mr. Cortellino asked, that business inerprise is permitted in a residential neighborhood, however it is my feeling, and it might be just my feeling, that things that are permitted in a residential thing is like one or two people, for instance, I have an insurance agent coming in and seeing one client at a time, but I notice on your plans you have a conference room, that sounds more like a full blown business. You are showing 8 seats. Mr. Zipprich stated, I have one employee, myself. It is a professional office, it doesn't have any traffic like a doctor, nothing like that what so ever. I go to clients, pick up books, bring them back to the office. Mr. Cortellino asked, if I were, lets say a computer consultant and one person would come to my house I wouldn't have a conference room wtih 8 chairs around a table for one person. Running my other activity I sit at the dining room with 4 or 5 people I don't have a conference room. I am trying to determine the magnitude. Page -17- December 23rd, 1987 Mr. Zipprich stated, I am expanding in a residential area and I feel that having a conference room is a library and a desk where you can sit down with IRS agents and sit down and be comfortable to do your job. Mr. Cortellino asked, how many IRS agents show up at a time? Mr. Zipprich answered, one. Mr. Cortellino asked, how many chairs does he need? Mr. Zipprich answered, one. Mr. Cortellino asked, then why do you need 8? That sounds like a waste of space. If you need a conference room, either you expect at least 5 people be sitting there or you are wasting space. Mr. Zipprich answered, I am adding also upstairs, increasing the living space, primarily, that is one of the reasons. In order to do that I have to do downstairs also, I can't let that sit idle. I can't build around the downstairs. If I expand upstairs I have to come out forward with the property so therefore automatically the downstairs will be increased. ....it is a very small house, 2 small bedrooms, living room and kitchen. No dining room, no big bedroom. I am adding upstairs as part of that, the downstairs is automatically expanded. I do not intend to expand my operation. Mr. Caballero asked, you are presently conducting your accounting business out of the home? Mr. Zipprich answered, yes. I have a Special Use Permit. Mr. Landolfi asked, I see in the present scamatic 10 foot sideyard, is that, and thats in R-40, is that correct, Hans? Mr. Gunderud answered, yes it is R-40. Mr. Landolfi stated, so it is only the 10 feet? Mr. Gunderud answered, 10 feet where 25 is required. Mr. Landolfi stated, I was out there today and I was trying to determine. Mr. Zipprich stated, that was only for the one level. There will be no living space on the top of that garage on the side. It is just so I have a second garage in the house. Mr. Landolfi stated, I think I see Mr. Cortellino's concerns. This looks like H & R Block. Mr. Hirkala stated, my impression, from the application is that he is asking for a increase in his residential use. Now what I see on the plan is primarily an increase of business use. Mr. Zipprich stated, thats not so. I can't increase upstairs without increasing downstairs Mr. Hirkala stated, you are going to increase downstairs and live in it without increasing your office space downstairs. What you are telling me is you want to live upstairs Page -18- December 23rd, 1986 so therefore you have to put underneath upstairs, that is what you are saying. Mr. Zipprich answered, I have office downstairs now and the upstairs. Mr. Hirkala stated, so you increase downstairs for your living space and you keep your office the same size but you are increasing the office downstairs also. Mr. Zipprich stated, it wouldn't lend itself to increase living space downstairs and ....around the office space. It doesn't lend itself that way. It is private and separate from my upstairs. Mr. Urciuoli stated, what I have a problem with in understanding the plans its kind of what comes first, the chicken or the egg as far as are you expanding the business or residential. Obviously you are doing both simultaneously but the business is going to occupy 800 s/f of space roughly. Mr. Zipprich stated, but it won't change the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Urciuoli stated, but there is only 3 parking spaces and, Hans on 800 s/f of office space how many parking spaces would be required? Mr. Gunderud answered, in a residential zone it says that you need 2 additional parking spaces to the 2 that you are required for the residential so you need a total of 4. You don't go by square foot of office space because it is supposed to be a small office. Mr. Hirkala stated, it is supposed to be incidental to the residential use. Mr. Urciuoli stated, I have a question on the incidental use. Didn't at one time we try to do a percentage of the living space only to be used for business in a home? Mr. Gunderud stated, there was a proposal for a new amendment but it hasn't materialized. Mr. Cortellino stated, I think we interpret it as incidental. I think really what we are doing is we have to watch, not how we interpret, we have to watch the home occupation whether it is an adjunct or whether it is almost the main purpose and I think from the size of this, like I said the conference room and what not it has become where the business has taken over from the residential aspect rather than the other way around. To have what looks to be a 12 x 12 computer room, to have a 12 x 12 conference room, a reception room, an office room, we are talking about a professional office. Mr. Landolfi asked, how large is your family at this time? Mr. Zipprich answered, it is just me right now. In reference to the computer room and conference room, one thing you want to realize how many files are being accumulated in this kind of a profession. I have file cabinets and file cabinets and that would mostly will, the conference room will take up is file cabinets. Mr. Cortellino stated, my concern is that in my view, the other 4 people may not agree, you can conduct a certain amount of businesses that are permitted in a residential neighborhood, that doesn't mean you put up almost an office building. I am not saying that you are putting an office building. There comes a point where you would rent into a professional building and not operate out of the home. Home is almost incidental low impact operation out of the home not a full blown, for instance, I go to a guy who is licensed to practice for the IRS, he does it in the home and it is just one room Page -19- December 23rd, 1987 set aside and he needs files, but now he is moving, he is expanding and he is getting office space out of the home. There comes a point where it is no longer a home occupation but a full blown office. What you show me is a full blown office. Mr. Zipprich stated, I don't intend to increase the operation of the office. I would just like to make use of my property, have ability, have a library and more space. The reception room is where the... is sitting who answers the phones ... I don't need to hire anybody else. I have on the current, under the current Special Use Permit I have permission to have 2 people working there that don't live there. So, I don't see any problems with that aspect of it. Would it satisfy you if I related on of those rooms as a private study? Mr. Cortellino stated, you show a 2 car garage, how many cars do you have? Mr. Zipprich answered, I have one. Mr. Cortellino asked, why do you need a 2 car garage? Mr. Zipprich answered, because I hope to have a bigger family and by putting a big addition on, as I am doing, I would like to incorporate a garage, a second garage to make it look better, asthetically, it breaks the lines down on the house and it looks nice, and that type of addition, that second garage would, at this point, be equal to other buildings that are going up in the area. Mr. Cortellino stated, well it is that second garage really that has caused you to be here. Mr. Landolfi asked Mr. Gunderud, does he need another variance for the County setback of 75 feet for that road? That is only 62 feet if that was granted. That is a County road and that calls for 75 feet? Would he in fact, if that variance was granted require another variance? Mr. Zipprich stated, it is the same as the previous. Mr. Caballero read 3 letters: Letter from the Duthess County Dept. of Public Works dated 12/1/86. Letter on file. Letter from the Dutchess County Dept. of Planning dated 12/2/86. Letter on file. Letter from Ron LaSota, abutting property owner dated 11/26/86. Letter on file. Mr. Cortellino asked Mr. Gunderud, I have a question that you could possible not answer, in fairness to the appellant. The Engineer's letter which refers to a sign on the County ROW referring to commercial. If their holding that to mean, lets say even the small identification signs like this one that we would have to look lets say on All Angels Road where the doctors are, is he referring to commercial or any sign, that is what I don't understand? Mr. Caballero stated, he can only go by the plans that he receives. Mr. Gunderud answered, he is referring to any sign. I have already sent some letters out to some people along All Angels Road. Mr. Caballero stated, I believe that the property has been granted a SUP for him to conduct his accounting business there. The question before us is whether we are going to grant a 15 foot varaince on the property line. Page -20- December 23rd, 1986 Mr. Landolfi asked, there is one in the files on that? Mr. Caballero asked, I would like to verify that. Mr. Gunderud answered, he is existing. Mr. Zipprich stated, believe me I do. Mr. Caballero asked, Hans, when you reviewed this file was there a SUP for an accounting office with 2 outside personnell allowed? Mr. Gunderud answered, he falls under the provision of having an incidental office in his residence and it existed for 10 years. Mr. Zipprich stated, I have had a SUP for 10 years. I have the papers at home. That was how the original site plan was drawn up, the plot plan that you see there. The reference was made to the professional sign, that came from the original application of the SUP. Mr. Urciuoli asked, what is the total square footage of the house.when you are finished? Mr. Zipprich answered, 2,300 s/f. Mr. Hirkala asked, how many square feet do you have now? Mr. Zipprich answered, 875 upstairs now. Mr. Cortellino asked, you said 875 s/f upstairs? Mr. Urciuoli stated, the whole place is going to be 3,500 s/f. Mr. Hirkala stated, I asked how many s/f you have now? Mr. Zipprich answered, I have 875 s/f in the house upstairs now. Mr. Cortellino asked, the downstairs? Mr. Zipprich answered, the same size. Mr. Caballero asked, you have a total of 1,600 s/f of living space and downstairs? Mr. Zipprich answered, right now. Part of which now is used as a one car garage. Mr. Urciuoli asked, when the house is finished, what is the total s/f that you are going to have, garage, everything, what is the total square footage of the house? Mr. Zipprich answered, I think 2,300 s/f. Mr. Urciuoli asked, that 2,300 includes a 2 car garage? Mr. Zipprich answered, yes. Mr. Urciuoli asked, which runs roughly, anybody want to take a guess? Mr. Hirkala stated, this one here is roughly 24 x 20. Page -21- December 23rd, 1986 Mr. Urciuoli stated, so that is going to leave 1,800 s/f, roughly, round figures. Of the 1,800 s/f of the house,.that is going to leave 1,800 s/f. Of the 1,800 s/f 800 s/f is business related, that is the point that I am trying to make. So it is going to leave you 1,OOOs/f for personal residence and roughly 800 s/f for....... Mr. Caballero asked, is there any other way you can make this addition without enfringing on the Zoning Ordinance? Mr. Zipprich answered, we have looked at that. We examined several ways, the problem is that the one car garage is on the side where I have the enfringement. I would have to remodel the whole house, change the entire layout to move that garage over to the other side of the house and it wouldn't be feasable at all. Mr. Caballero asked, why wouldn't it be feasable. It would cost you more money, you would have to re-engineer it. Mr. Zipprich stated, it would be economically. It would be undue hardship to move the garage that is existing there now and bring it over to the other side. The driveway is over here and the garage is, we would have to get a new driveway pushed in. It wouldn't make sense. Mr. Urciuoli stated, I think the thing that I am having a problem trying to justify or trying to grant you relief with is we keep talking about the garage and the setback for the garage but the garage is attached to the business which is a major renovation r to the house. So is the upstairs but it is more than an incidental use to the house. Mr. Zipprich stated, I am adding a bedroom upstairs, and I am adding a living room up there. I don't think it is that incidental. It would take more money upstairs then dowstairs. There would be a master bedroom suite and there would be a big living room. I have a small living room with no dining room and eat in kitchen. I would like to improve on it. I think the neighborhood lends itself to it. Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone else who was interested in this appeal. There was no one present. Mr. Caballero asked for a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Landolfi made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes. The motion was carried. Mr. Hirkala stated, this thing says that the residence floor area is 1,508 s/f. I don't get that. The new plan says that he has got residence floor area at 1,508 s/f, residence floor area, then it says garage area 543, storage/utility area 275, office area 800, a total of 3,124 s/f and that is his total area going to be plus the porch and entrance protico. Now upstairs there is 38'8" by 34 feet with a little jog out the front of the living room which is 15' x 6 or 7, that comes a little over 1,000, thats not 1,500? Page -22- December 23rd, 1986 Mr. Caballero stated, your basic concern is in reference to that amount of footage used for the office. You can see an alternative here where that garage can be placed on this side without enfringing on that side. Mr. Hirkala stated, I am talking about the discrepency I see on the plan. Mr. Caballero stated that he would entertain a motion. Mr. Cortellino stated, I move the variance be denied. Number one, alternative solutions are available. For instance, remaining with a one car garage, or moving the garage to the other side. In addition, There ate other alternatives available. Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.. Vote: Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye Mr. Urciuoli - aye The motion was carried. Mr. Caballero stated, sir, the variance has been denied. That Board found that there is other ways that you can accomplish what you want to do there without enfringing on the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Caballero read the next appeal: Appeal 4968, at the request of Carl Swenson, seeking a variance of Article IV, §422 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for an additional use of an existing building located in the AI -2A zone on property located on New Hackensack Road, and bean, Parcel 46158-02-987920, in the Town of Wappinger. David Hagstrom, Van de Water & Van de Water,,Attorney for Mr. Swenson was present. Mr. Hagstrom stated, I am here prepresenting Carl Swenson. Basically, I am sure that you are all familiar with this property. It has been out there for a long time and since its late in the evening let me just, if I may, just say in a nut shell, what the problem is. Carl has a gymnastic organization in the part of the building and is attempting to rent the rest of the building. He has had it ....2 or 3 years and it is not in very good shape. The way, we went to get a building permit, he did start some refurbishing by putting up plaster board, refurbishing the bathrooms and I am sure that Hans is familiar with it, putting some siding. There is no addition of square footage. We are here because, for the simple reason that in order to get the building permit, they say, well, you may have another tenant..and the way the zoning law is being interpreted is "if you have more than one use, even though it is a permitted use under the Airport Industrial Zone you have to come in to the Zoning Board of Appeals". First, before I go any further we have a letter, which is really addressed to the Building Inspector, if I may hand it up, and I have copies, it is from our neighbor, Dr. Brown, who would encourage you to allow this to get started because he would like to see the building refurbished next to him and I would request that this become part of the record. Letter dated 12/8/86 to the Building Inspector from Dr. Brown on file. Mr. Hagstrom stated, financially what the problem is is the... that it can't be rented. That is the economic hardship. You are not going to change the character of the Page -23- December 23rd, 1986 neighborhood, what we would like is to have 2 tenants for a use that is consitent with the Airport Industrial Use, that it would be conditioned that they would be consistent with it. We are in a catch a 22. In order to rent it we have to fix it up so we don't know who the tenant is right now. And what we would like to do is just basic refurbishing and we're to be allowed to that we have to have permission from you for another use. Does that basically summarize it? Mr. Caballero stated, I think you can refurbish the property without having an additional use, Hans, would you think so? Mr. Gunderud stated, if he needs a building permit, he is in a commercial zone, so the Zoning Ordiance does not allow us to issue a building permit unless he gets site plan approval and because he wants to have multiple uses he would need to come before the Board. Mr. Caballero stated, well, that is because he wants multiple uses. But if he wanted to refurbish his building with one single use there he can get a permit can't he? Mr. Gunderud answered, yes. Mr. Hagstrom stated, but we cannot rent it out for one single use. We have not been able to do that. Mr. Caballero stated, so therefore, you would not want to refurbish it if you cannot get double tenant there? Mr. Hagstrom stated, what we would like is permission to have a double use there. This is, I have pictures of the place when we started. If you have been out there you know what it is, otherwise I have them.to show. This is part of the back of the building. He is just putting on sidings and doors. This is a view looking out, this is the part where nothing has been done, whats is proposed to do is just repaint the block or replaster it. Simply to use it for the uses that are permitted in Airport Industrial ...what is anticipated is something along the line, well its not really commercial in a commercial sense, either storage, Airport Industrial is really low traffic type of use. Its not like a commercial use, so commercial isn't the correct word. Mr. Urciuoli asked, how long have you owned the property? Mr. Swenson answered, about 40 years. Mr. Hagstrom stated, this was his grandfathers, I believe. Mr. Swenson answered, originally it was his and I bought it about 42 years. Mr. Urciuoli asked, and in the past it generated income from the property? Mr. Swenson answered, yes sir. Mr. Urciuoli stated, you made a statement that you have been unable to rent it, do we have any sort of proof, ads that have been run or anything that we can enter into the records that shows that you have actively tried to rent it for the use that it is intended for? Mr. Hagstrom asked Mr. Swenson, who have you had the property listed with? Mr. Swenson answered, Century 21. Page -24- December 23rd, 1986 ,r Mr. Hagstrom asked. Mr. Swenson, and your realator is George..? Mr. Swenson answered, Bill Latham. We also had it listed with another, Girnsey, and Girnsey had 2 tenants, potential tenants, but because it wasn't in repair they just walked away from it. Mr. Hagstrom stated, I know it has been on the market with Bill Latham because I talked with him personally. Mr. Caballero asked, do you have a current lease to whoever is renting the property now? Mr. Swenson answered, I own the property. Mr. Hagstrom stated, a current lease. A portion of it is rented to.... Mr. Swenson answered, a portion is rented by just a gentlemens agreement. Mr. Hagstrom stated, it is leased without a written lease. Mr. Caballero asked Ms. Berberich if they had anything from the County on this property? Ms. Berberich replied, from Planning. Mr. Cortellino read the letter from the Dut. Co. Dept. of Planning dated 12/8/86. Letter on file. Mr. Caballero asked, do you have any proof at this time where you cannot get a reasonable return? Mr. Hagstrom answered, yes. I can have Mr. Swenson be sworn and we can have him testify. We are not able to rent it, we can only rent the portion of it. That you, when you have it vacant and connot get tenants into it, quite simply the taxes in the Town have gone up and especially the school taxes to a point where it is more possibly than even what it brings in. At one time, when I first met Carl, it would be about 14 years ago, when things were really different. At this point what portion of it do you have leased? Mr. Swenson answered, just the front part of it. Mr. Caballero stated, he has only a gentlemen agreement. He doesn't have a lease. Mr. Hagstrom stated, well, whether he has, its a month to month is what it is. It just means its not a written lease. Mr. Caballero asked, how is the Board going to determine what is going to be in there, and what the needed parking extra for the one or two businesses that you want to put in there. Right now we don't know what is in that particular, what kind of rental it is. Mr. Hagstrom stated, my problem is is that we cannot come in, we are in the catch 22. I would love to tell you. If we could fix it up we could come back but we asked for a building permit. The building permit was then denied because they said we didn't have a variance. Mr. Caballero stated, I disagree. I understand what he said. The gentlemen said that a permit could be granted to you. You want 2,uses, multiple uses so then he Page -25- December 23rd, 1986 cannont grant you a permit but there is no reason why you can't fix up the property. and get a permit to do it. That is how I understand it, am I incorrect Mr. Gunderud? Mr. Hagstrom stated, that is not my understanding. Mr. Gunderud stated, he could get a building permit if he then comes in for a site plan. He first comes in for a site plan of the total property and goes throught the site plan procedure and shows all the parking all the site work that would be reuqired for the building. If during the site plan he shows that he has another use there, which I understand that is what his intention was, then he would have to come here. The reason he is here now is because he said he cannot find a tenant to me, he said he cannot find a tenant who rent the total building. The present tenant who is there, the gymnasium doesn't need that space, doesn't want that whole space so he can't expand into it so in effect he is saying he needs 2 uses.and that is why he came to this Board. Mr. Urciuoli stated, I don't understand why there are 2 uses that are required in that airport zoning. Mr. Hagstrom stated, my interpretation, quite frankly is, we should not have to go here contrary to this. However, we have to exhaust your administrative appeals. I think it is very narrow intepretation to say that you can't have, well I will give you an example, in the Town of Poughkeepsie.it would be the same as saying where you have Crazy Eddies and a lingerie store that you have to come in for a permit for each one although they are all permitted commercial uses. The same thing here at Walbaums. Mr. Landolfi stated, that is a different zone. Mr. Uricuoli stated, a permitted use is places or amusement or recreation such as, tennis, swimming clubs, roller or ice skating rinks, and bowling alleys, and they are examples. My interpretation is that they are examples. Also permitted in there are restaurants, places serving food and beverage including fast food establishments, wholesale or storage business, warehousing, not to include building, plumbing, electrical or contracting establishment. There is an awful to of permitted uses that are allowed there. Now whether its no renovated to someones liking a gymnasium, would that fall into this category or amusement , clubs, tennis? Mr. Cortellino answered, yes. Mr. Urciuoli asked, so if that falls into this category as a permitted use and a hotel or warehouse also falls into those categories, what you are asking for is a carte blanche use variance out there. Mr. Hagstrom stated, no, I think you misunderstand me. I do not want, I only want 2 uses there that are permitted. I don't want anything that is not permitted in AI. Mr. Urciuoli stated, then you don't need us. Mr. Hagstrom stated, well thats what I think, but, no. Just to answer you specific question. I am saying that we want to be able to use a multiple use for the same building with the condition that it is restricted to the permitted uses in AI. We are not asking for a variance on use. That would be a totally different type of thing. Thats all we are asking for. If you want to give restrictions, we still would have to go through site plan approval to do the parking and to take care of the traffic and the signage. That would not get us out of that. So when we had a tenant we would have to go back in and go to them, this is the first step as we see it. Allow us to do 2 uses. Page -26- December 23rd, 1986 This doesn't let us escape site plan approval. That would still be over us. I think what it will do is improve that neighborhood tremendously. I think Dr. Brown has done a very nice job with one of Carls buildings right on the side and that is what we are attempting to do here. Mr. Hirkala stated, he didn't do that with Carl's building. He did that after he bought the building. Mr. Hagstrom answered, yes, I understand. Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this appeal. There was no one. Mr. Caballero stated, Mr. Swenson, it seems to be your property, you have anything to add? Mr. Swenson stated, all I want is a building permit to finish remodeling my building. That is all I really want. Mr. Caballero stated, Hans can grant it to you. Mr. Gunderud stated, no, he cannot get it -because when I stopped you working there you said you were building offices and you have a gymnasium and I said you cannot have gymnasiums and offices and that is why you are here. Mr. Swenson stated, I would like to just finish the building so I can show a potential tenant. That is all. Mr. Gunderud stated, the place was a cow barn and you are converting a cow barn into offices and I said you cannot do that. Mr. Caballero stated, plus you have a gymnastic tenant there so that is 2 uses. You have anything you want to add sir or Mr. Swenson? Mr. Hagstrom stated, just to remind the Board one more time that we do, we will have to go back for site plan approval, it will improve the area, we can't rent it right now, all we are asking for is permission to have another use, with the restriction that it is a permitted use under the AI. We still have to go in and get everything approved by the Planning Board and you can make it conditioned on approval of any new tenant with site plan approval for the Planning Board. Mr. Caballero stated, let the records show that there was nobody interested in the appeal.in the audience. Mr. Cortellino made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes. The motion was carried. Mr. Caballero asked if there was any discussion between the Board. Page -27- December 23rd, 1986 Mr. Landolfi stated, I am all for something be done to make it asthetically different, if you will. Mr. Caballero stated, I am all for having that building cleaned up and look attractive but I am going to stick to our intpertation of our Zoning Ordinance which only one use is allowed on that property. Mr. Hirkala asked, didn't you get a subdivision on that whole parcel? Mr. Caballero stated, this is closed to the public. Are you directing a question to Mr. Swenson? Mr. Hirkala answered, yes, he is not the public. Mr. Caballero stated, I believe that there is a problem with one of the barns being to close to this particular property. Mr. Hirkala stated, I seem to recall, correct me if I am wrong Hans, last year or 2 years ago, I seem to recall there was a subdivision process going on, that whole large parcel. Mr. Gunderud answered, yes, it was subdivided. Mr. Hirkala stated, so now we are talking about that one' piece that is next to the Brown property? Mr. Gunderud answered, yes._ Mr. Hirkala asked, and there is a legally non, wait a second, that property was subdivided, was a variance granted for that lot line when Brown was cut out. Mr. Caballero stated, the building that he is talking is in between the big barn and the brown property. If I recall that other barn is really close to the gymnasium. Mr. Hirkala stated, what I am trying to say is that gymnasium is up close to the road isn't it, where the battery company used to be. Mr. Caballero stated, relative to what is being asked to the Zoning Board of Appeals to give a variance on has nothing to do with the other properties. Mr. Hirkala asked Mr..Swenson, could you tell me which property, with the cluster of buildings that is there is this the one right next to Brown? Mr. Swenson answered, yes. Battery company used to be in front. This is in the back part. Mr. Hirkala asked Hans, that is awfully close to the property line, I would imagine there was variances given when they drew that line through there? Mr. Gunderud answered, no, that was a separate lot from the Brown. When that was separated there was a variance given for Dr. Brown's building. Mr. Swenson stated, there is a 16 foot ROW between Brown's, there is some more room between that. Page -28- December 23rd, 1986 Mr. Urciuoli stated, I have a question for Mr. Swenson. Do you have any financial statements, or dollar and cents proof that each of the permitted uses will not yield you a reasonable return? In other words, the permitted uses that are there that are available to you, not the multiple use concept, but the permitted uses, if you did rent it all out for office space, my contention is you wouldn't have any financial problem. Do you have anything to the contrary? Mr. Swenson stated, I can't rent it because I don't have the thing fixed up so anybody can see what it looks like. Mr. Caballero stated, we are back to the catch 22 situation. He can repair it as long as he doesn't have multiple uses. Mr. Landolfi stated, maybe there is a way around this. I am against the multi uses also in that area but I think something should be done with the building and, maybe if the building was fixed up as such maybe he could get a business to perhaps be interested in the property. Mr. Caballero stated, I agree and also you have the letter from the County where if they had the specifics of which 2 businesses were going to go there where we could evaluate the 2 particular tenants that are going into the building and make an intelligent decision from them maybe we would be inclined to grant a variance but we haven't seen anything of that nature here tonight. I will entertain a motion. Mr. Landolfi stated, I would be willing to allow the issuance of a building permit only to upgrade the property. Mr. Caballero stated, but he doesn't need that from us. If he upgrades the property...... f Mr. Cortellino stated, as long as he doesn't say multiple uses he can upgrade the property.; Mr. Landolfi stated, no, not according to Hans. Mr. Caballero stated, well, if he is upgrading the property for multiple uses Hans cannot give him a permit. Mr. Landolfi stated, in order to make the property more attractive so one business might be interested in the whole parcel. Mr. Urciuoli asked Mr. Gunderud, is there anyway that we can grant Mr. Swenson some relief, even if we put some restrictions on it where he can get his building completed to our building specifications, to our building codes but yet not give him a multiple use. When it comes time to get a tenant he is going to have to decide what he wants that single use tenant or the gymnasium there or one of the permitted uses there but not multiple use. Mr. Gunderud stated, that is why I said before, if he wanted to come in for an improvement of the building, if it was completely vacant right now he would come in for site plan approval and then he would submit to the Planning Board what the use would be. If it was just one use he could continue through site plan approval and be able to get a building permit, but, because he was, his conversation with me was that he is going to convert the back part of the building to an office and the front was a gymnasium then I said you are going to have to get a variance and go before the Zoning Board of Appeals because that would be 2 uses. It was my understanding that that was what they wanted to do. The application that came in was a little more open a vague than what he talked M Page -29- December 23rd, 1986 about specifically of what the uses would be. If he wanted to have the office, wnated to convert that back part of the building to offices, have the gymnasium still there he would have to come before the Board for a variance before I could sign off on the building permit. Now, as far as the outside work, dressing up the building and doing landscaping or anything like that for incidental work on the building he wouldn't need a permit to redo the roof or redo the siding, it is only because he was working inside the building, redoing ceiling and walls and electrical work, heating and things like that that require a building permit and that is where we had to stop the work and say you have to get a building permit to do that work. Mr. Hirkala asked, so what you are saying is that he was going ahead with the renovation of the old barn. Mr. Gunderud answered, there was work going on he felt was renovation in a sense, just dressing up. I felt that it was beyond that. It was actually converting a space which did not exist before as finsished space into finished space. And he said he wanted to make offices. Mr. Hirkala stated, so he was going to go ahead and rent offices without any permits. Mr. Gunderud stated, well I don't know that. All I know is that he didn't have a permit to do the work inside the building that he was doing. Mr. Urciuoli asked, so there can be external cosmetic work done to the building? Mr. Gunderud stated, he has new siding on the building. Mr. Caballero stated that he would entertain a motion. Mr. Urciuoli stated, I make a motion that the variance be denied. I do not fell that the applicant has demonstrated sufficient financial hardship on the single use,that our zoning allows for in that area. Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion. Vote: Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye Mr. Urciuoli - aye The motion was carried. Mr. Caballero read the next appeal: Appeal #970, at the request of John Vorndran, seeking a variance of Article_ IV, §430 & §450 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for the extension of time to begin construction on a lot which has had Special Use Permit and Site Plan approval_ on property located on Old All Angels Hlll Road, and being Parcel 46257-02-950722, in the Town of Wappinger. John Vorndran, the appellant was present. Mr. Vorndran stated, when we started this we got approval for variances and so forth and by the time we got the last approvals the time ran out. We got our first approvals in August 1984 and the last one was May 1986. Page -30- December 23rd, 1986 Mr. Caballero asked, and you are looking for an extension? Mr. Vorndran answered, yes. Mr. Caballero asked, how long do you need to get started there? Mr. Vorndran answered, well I am not going to build it myself, I want to sell it. Mr. Caballero asked, is that the property that has the sign that it is for sale. And it is approved for office building? Mr. Vorndran answered, a medical building. I have all my approvals, I paid for the downstream drainage, parking, the building permit. Mr. Caballero asked, and you just want to get an extension and see if you get a buyer so that you would be able to sell it? Mr. Vorndran answered, yes. Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak either for or against this appeal. There was no one present. Mr. Gunderud stated, this is a problem in that when the Zoning Ordinance was changed apparantly a year or so ago which required not only a SUP but also site plan procedure and I think the Zoning Ordinance probably has to be amended in that regard because when the Zoning Board grants the SUP and I issue it, like in Mr. Vordran's case, it took over a year or so for the process of going through the site plan to get that finalized, and then Board of Health approval so he could not have possibly started the work in the period that the SUP was in effect. It is a problem that I think has to be addressed in the Zoning Ordinance and so forth. He got caught in the situation. Mr. Cortellino asked, they have a year really, right? Mr. Gunderud answered, yes. It should be from time of final approval. Mr. Caballero asked, can we do something for him? Extend him for a year? Mr. Gunderud answered, yes, I would say so. Mr. Hirkala asked, when did you get approval from the Planning Board? Mr. Vorndran answered, May 1986. That was for the grading from the Town Engineer. Mr. Cortellino stated, I am more in favor of giving 6 months, 7 months have gone by since the last approval. If we give him a year he is really have a year and a half then. He said May '86 he got his last approval. Mr. Caballero stated, it looks like he is not going to act on it unless somebody buys the property for what he has got on the SUP. Mr. Cortellino asked, then what does he do, come back in another year? Page -31- December 23rd, 1986 Mr. Hirkala stated, my question pertains to the discussion right now. When did you make the determination that you weren't going to build, that you were goign to sell? Mr. Vorndran answered, it took so long to get the approvals, I decided that I was going to sell it, I didn't want to take the chance. Mr. Hirkala asked, so you have been trying to sell it since May? Mr. Vorndran answered, a little longer than that. Mr. Caballero asked, did you ever intend to build that property? Mr. Vorndran answered, I did when I started. Mr. Urciuoli asked, couldn't the prospective buyer come in for their own SUP? Mr. Caballero stated, they would have to go through the process all over again. Mr. Vorndran stated, I paid all my fees, the parking on the building, downstream drainage, paid for the building permit, all this has been paid and you are talking about a lot of money. Mr. Landolfi asked, is this in the hands of a real estate agent right now? Mr. Vorndran answered, yes, I have a buyer coming to look at it this friday.. Mr. Landolfi stated, the concern, like Mr. Cortellino raised is has this been in the hands of an agent since May? Mr. Vorndran answered, yes. Mr. Caballero asked, would 6 months give you enough time to try to sell this? Mr. Vorndran answered, I think I should be able to sell it in that time. Mr. Cortellino stated, I move we give a 6 month extension. Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion. Vote: Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye Mr. Urciuoli - aye The motion was carried. Mr. Landolfi made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes. The motion was carried. Page -32- December 23rd, 1986 The Board called a break at 9:10 P.M.. The meeting was called back to order at 9:15 P.M.. Mr. Caballero stated, I have a request from Appeal #963, Carmen Verdile to be heard a little bit earlier than the first under new business. His mother is in Intensive care in Vassar Hospital. Would anyone in the audience mind if we hear his case out of turn. There were no objections. Mr. Caballero read the appeal: Appeal #963, at the request of Carmen Verdile, seeking an interpretation of Article IV, §404.33 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance for the determination by the Zoning Board of Appeals for the placement of a modern mobile home for an old, existing mobile home on property located on Chelsea Road, and being Parcel #6056-03-343488, in the Town of Wappinger. Carmen Verdile, the appellant was present. Mr. Caballero read a letter from Frederick N. Antilek. Letter on File. Mr. Verdile stated, this summer it will not be insured. It is an old 1955 travel trailer. Mr. Caballero asked, is this new trailer going to be any bigger than the trailer thats... Mr. Verdile answered, yes. 14 x 44. Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone int he audience to speak either for or against this appeal. There was no one present. Mr. Landolfi stated, this is an interpretation. Mr. Cortellino stated, there is a discrepency, I don't know whether it is a typo or not between the petition and Mr. Antilek. Mr. Antilek refers to a 1965 Star and Mr. Verdile refers to a 1955 trailer. Mr. Verdile answered, it is 1955.It couldn't be found on the trailer so he put down 1965, I have been there a little over 3 years. Mr. Caballero asked, is there any reason why you couldn't be able to replace the trailer with the same size trailer that was there before? Mr. Verdile answered, it is 10 x 30 feet. This is an old travel trailer that is there right now and the previous, previous owner built an old wooden bedroom on the back of it. It is not a dwelling per say. Mr. Caballero asked, were permits necessary and gotten for the enclosed porch and the garage on that property? Mr. Gunderud answered, not to my knowledge. I haven't researched the property to see if there are any violations. Mr. Verdile closed on the property 3 years ago and I assumed at that time it was searched since it was closed on so recently. I never bothered to re -research the property. That would have been checked out and if permits had been required they would have gotten them. Page -33- December 23rd, 1986 kw Mr. Verdile stated, Mr. Pagones researched that. Mr. Cortellino stated, I have another thing that disturbs me. It is more of a question. Is the insurance company going to determine when my house, there is a statement here saying my insurance agent Mr. Antilek, Main St., Beacon does not wish to continue covering my place due to strict insurance company policies on outdate trailer homes. In the letter there is nothing saying that about outdated home, but now are we going to get into a problem where insurance companies are going to, I admit that according to Mr. Verdile the home needsreplacing, floors rotted, the ceiling leaks, but where is the policy from the insurance company that says trailer homes cannot be older than lets say 10 yers, 15 years, and do they..... Mr. Hirkala stated, it says due to the age of your mobile home located on the lot.. Mr. Caballero stated, he shows here that the trailer is so old it is very difficult to heat and is almost beyond repair. Mr. Cortellino stated, I can understand that, I am just saying I don't see a statement from the insurance company, when do they stop insuring trailers and when do they stop insuring homes, we have alot of colonial homes around, are they no longer insurable. There are 200 or 300 years old. Mr. Landolfi stated, I have a question and it is related to the interpretation again. In your letter, Mr. Verdile, you said that you would greatly appreciate your approval of this variance. Was it intended that you wanted a variance versus an interpretation? Mr. Verdile answered, I don't know. Mr. Landolfi asked Mr. Gunderud, do you see my question. In his letter he talks to a variance. In his paperwork it is all addressed to an interpretation. Mr. Gunderud stated, this is an interpretation. It is under that section of the Zoning Ordinance that talks about non -conforming uses in that §404.33, non -conforming uses may be changed if determined by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Hirkala asked, how large is the one you want to replace it with? Mr. Verdile answered, 14 x 44. Mr. Urciuoli stated, the current trailer is roughly 240 s/f. The new trailer is 616 s/f. Mr. Hirkala asked, what about the addition? Mr. Verdile answered, there won't be any addition. That goes away with the trailer. Mr. Hirkala asked, how big is the addition? Mr. Verdile answered, you can see it on the survey map. This is just a little travel trailer. Mr. Caballero asked, this garage that he shows here, is that garage on the property line? Mr. Verdile stated, it is just the way it shows. Page -3 4 - December 23rd, 1986 Mr. Hirkala asked, how about the new trailer. Is that going to be on the property line? Mr. Verdile answered, no, I plan to put it diagonal. Mr. Hirkala asked, he is going to have to come back in? Mr. Caballero stated, under the interpretation I feel that you can interpret it that loosely. That an old existing mobile home can be replaced by any size mobile home, I would have gone along with an interpretation that you couldn't replace and old, existing home with one of a similar size but, this looks like it is a much bigger trailer. Also, I have a problem with the property itself. How did the garage get there on the property line? Mr. Urciuoli stated, they are all pre-existing. The front part of this property, the 1/3 front part of the property slopes down, its a hill. Mr. Hirkala stated, I think you are looking at a situation that the replacement of a similar size trailer is impossible because they don't make them. We went through that before with those trailer parks. The smallest width you can buy today is 14 feet. Mr. Verdile stated, this is the only small trailer that I could find. Mr. Landolfi stated, our Town Attorney adivised us that it would be advantagous to allow the upgrading, if you will, because it ends up being an enhancement to eveyone. The Town, the appellant. if you recall the one trailer park that we had problems with and that was Jennifer's interpretation. There is a similar situation that arose at that time. Mr. Urciuoli stated, but you are talking about a trailer park, this is a single trailer. sitting in a residential area. Mr. Caballero asked, Mr. Gunderud, if we replace this trailer where would the trailer have to go to meet the sideyard setbacks? Mr. Gunderud stated, it is an R-20 zone there so it would have to be 20 fee for sideyards. Mr. Landolfi asked, is there adequate footage there? Mr. Gunderud answered, there should be. He would have to put it on an angle. There is a hill there. Mr. Caballero asked, that would make it difficult to place it? I didn't go look at this property but if he places it where he has it here you couldn't. Where would you place that trailer if you did get a variance? Mr. Verdile answered, we would have to get definite plans.. We would have to put it on an angle because right here it goes down the hill but there is room to put it there and maintain...... Mr. Caballero asked.Mr. Urciuoli, did you take a look at this? Mr. Urciuoli answered, I go by it everyday. Mr. Caballero asked, do you think that would be an improvement? Page -35- December 23rd, 1986 Mr. Urciuoli answered, anything has to improve the trailer that is there. I am concerned about the size of the new trailer going in there as opposed to what is there now,even though what is there now is, you don't really see it anymore, you are just used to seeing it. You are going to put something up that is almost 3 times bigger and sitting on a hill it is going to be very obvious. It is not in an area that its almost out of site where you can't see it. It is in a very obvious spot on that road. Mr. Verdile stated, this is the shortest one I could find. I have been to Kingston, all over. Mr. Caballero asked, what size is the one you have found? Mr. Verdile answered, 14 x 44. Mr. Urciuoli stated, the other thing is is that there is not much more you can do with less than a quarter of an acre of land. You can't build a garage on it really. Mr. Hirkala asked, do you understand that if you are allowed to put the new trailer on there you would have to maintain the setbacks on all sides. The location of the trailer would have to be in the middle of the lot. Mr. Verdile stated, it would have to go on an angle. Mr. Urciuoli asked, would you have any objections to putting some sort of screening up in the front part, hedging, schrubbery, fencing. Mr. Verdile stated, I will improve the property but first I have to start with a new trailer. I want to do the whole front over where the bank comes down. Mr. Urciuoli stated, if he could put up some schrubbery or something that in a year or two would grow and eventually it is not as obvious as it would be I wouldn't have any problems doing it that way. Mr. Caballero stated, I have no problem with granting a new trailer, it is obvious that it should be done but I don't have enough here for me to intelligently say where is should go, if you had a drawing of where the other trailer would be placed. What the sideyard setbacks were, and what kind of screening you would put on it then I could make a decision. Mr Landolfi stated, he is just looking now for us to interpret if he can proceed. Mr. Hirkala asked, can we grant him approval. Mr. Landolfi stated, there is no approval. Its interpretation. Mr. Gunderud stated, you are talking about setbacks and so on, this lot is so small that there is no way to put the trailer on, any size trailer on almost even at an angle. Unfortunately, Chelsea Road is a County Road. You need 75 foot setback. You need 40 foot rearyard, that is 115 feet back there and the small size lot is only 110 foot so the lot itself is so, not deep enough even for the setback without any building. Mr. Hirkala stated, the lot is so non -conforming. Mr. Gunderud stated, the feeling that I had, when I was talking to Mr. Verdile is Page -36- December 23rd, 1986 that he place the trailer in the same general area as the existing trailer, that would be what you would determine. If he is required to meet all of those setbacks then he would definitely have to come back for a variance— Mr. Cortellino asked, lets say this lot was sold, what kind of a house could go in there? Mr. Urciuoli answered, you can't. Mr. Gunderud stated, it would require a variance. The frontyard or rearyard or both and probably even sideyard because the back of the lot is only 64 foot wide. Mr. Cortellino stated, that is the reason for my question. 14 x 44 is smaller than a house. Mr. Caballero stated, I don't have any problem in having him replace that trailer with a newer trailer, I just have a problem with the stermination that we would have to make. And, if we make a determination as it is written here that means somebody else could come in and say that well you determined that you can do that. Although we don't establish precidence but we do interpret the Zoning Ordinance than we have to live with it from there on. Mr. Urciuoli stated, we could say based on the information this applicant has provided us with according to his application. Mr. Hirkala stated, §404 specifically states that you can replace what is existing. The determination that we have to make is whether or not we are allowed the replacement mobile home to be larger than the one that is there because the existing is not available. Mr. Caballero stated, we have basis for that because they don't manufacture anything smaller than he has found. That type of mobile home is no longer available, so we are covered on that end. Mr. Landolfi stated, I interpret §404.33, relative to Mr. Verdile's application for interpretation. I interpret it that we feel he can replace the existing trailer subject to approval of our Building Inspection and the various codes that are required. Mr. Hirkala stated, I think he would have to have a variance. Mr. Landolfi stated, well if thats the case he would have to come in. Mr. Cortellino stated, my suggestion would be to interpret it that he cannot put in a trailer and then come back in for a variance which we could grant based on the fact that he cannot use the lot for a house and a trailer is smaller than a house and grant him the variance for the trailer rather than make an interpretation. Mr. Hirkala stated, what you are saying is make the interpretation that he can't replace it. Mr. Cortellino stated, that he cannot and then come in for a variance based on hardship. Mr. Hirkala stated, if we grant the motion that Joe just made he still can't go and replace that trailer. He is going to have to come back in get a variance of the setbacks and for a larger trailer. Page -37- December 23rd, 1986 Mr. Landolfi stated, but this allows him to proceed now. if we put him off he is prolonged another month. Mr. Verdile stated, what you just said is what I already just did, with the exception of, I didn't give you a plan showing this trailer was going to be in this exact spot. I have already done all the other paperwork. Mr. Hirkala stated, this request is for an interpretation not for a variance. Mr. Verdile stated, I came in for a variance when I started. Mr. Hirkala stated, my feeling is is that he can put the new trailer on but he is going to have to get setback..... Mr. Landolfi stated, I hopefully covered it by saying that he is subjected to the necessary approvals. Mr. Cortellino stated, but then he would have to come back for a bunch of variances because Hans said that the new trailer can't fit in there. Mr. Urciuoli asked Mr. Gunderud, why did he come in for an interpretation as opposed to a variance? Is there something that we are missing here? Mr. Gunderud answered, because it is non -conforming, legally non -conforming and whole section of the Zoning Ordinance is a separate section so first of all when anybody has a non -conforming use of the property I use that section to bring them before the Board and then just as the Board is doing, the Board is now finding out that there are other problems and making a determination about the trailer use, but still there are going to be other problems. Mr. Caballero stated, can I make a suggestion. How about if we make the determination on the basis that this particular lot and case is a special case and that our determination would be that normally we would not interpret that you can change an old, existing mobile home with a new one, but because this is a special case on this particular lot for that size that we will allow for him to, we would interpret that he could change that old existing home for a new one subject to. Mr. Cortellino stated, I make a motion of what Mr. Caballero said. Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion. Vote: Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirlala - aye Mr. Urciuoli - aye The motion was carried. Mr. Caballero stated, basically, we are going to interpret that you can change it but you will have to come back for a variance on the size of the trailer versus the sideyard distance that is required and most likely I can see by the temper of the Board that you would probably get an approval on that. Mr. Verdile asked, do I need an actual surveyor to survey that out of where it is going to be on that. Page -38- December 23rd, 1986 Mr. Caballero answered, yes. It should be done properly. Mr. Cortellino made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Urciuoli seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes. The motion was carried. Mr. Caballero read the next appeal: Appeal 4900, at the request of John Durcan, seeking a Special Use Permit of Article IV, §421, 1f8 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to convert an existing 3 family dwelling, which was built prior to 1963 and which contains over 3,000 s/f of useable floor area to a six (6) unit apartment building on property located on Route 9D, and being Parcel 46157-01-136640, in the Town of Wappinger. John Durcan, the appellant was present. Mr. Caballero read a letter into the Minutes from Jeffrey Contellmo. Letter on file. Mr. Caballero read a letter from the Dept. of Planning dated 12/19/86. Letter on file. Mr. Caballero stated, I believe we have a letter from the Dept. of Transporation and we also have one from our Engineer, Paggi & Martin. I believe we are waiting for an interpretation from Paggi & Martin on the Long EAF. Linda, they received it and they said they were going to look at it? Ms. Berberich answered, they are reviewing it. Mr. Landolfi stated, we can't act without, thats the contingency in this whole thing. Mr. Caballero asked, is this matter tabled until we have that? Mr. Landolfi stated, we have no choice. Mr. Hirkala stated, our engineer has to review that and come back to us with a report on the review. Mr. Caballero asked, you were concerned with the time factor, etc.. Mr. Durcan answered, yes, I am very concerned because I am paying a very high mortgage on the building. Mr. Caballero stated, I thought your concern was that the time to make a decision on this will expire. Mr. Durcan stated, I am concerned because I understand that has been before the Zoning Board and the amendment of the ordinance. Mr. Caballero stated, not if we are seeking information from our agencies and we still haven't received all the information. Mr. Durcan stated, so you have explained but I also have financial concerns. Page -39 - December 23rd, 1986 Mr. Caballero asked, are those self-inflicted financial concerns? Mr. Durcan stated, I don't know if they are self-inflicted. I purchased the property based upon that interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance given to me by the Zoning Administrator and I assumed that this matter would be dealt with expeditiously and I didn't anticipate the delays that I am experiencing.whether that was my lack of forsight I don't know. Mr. Landolfi stated, we are proceeding according to normal standards, if you will. We can't dictate all the agencies, in other words, just like we needed correspondence from the County Agencies, that is something that we need also. Mr. Durcan stated, there was a misunderstanding between myself and the Secretary of the Zoning Board. I understood that she would convey those to the appropriate Town groups and she understood that I would give them to them. There was a misunderstanding and I guess that explains part of the delay. Mr. Landolfi stated, I am sorry if you feel that we have been in any way, again, we have to follow certain steps just to cover ourselves, legally, if you will. Mr. Caballero asked, the Long EAF was sent to the Engineer to the Town, Zoning Adminsitrator,. Fire PRevention Bureau, Dut. CO. Dept. of Planning, NYS Dept. of Transportation, Conservation Advisory Council, and I believe something was sent to the Board of Health in reference. They were given 15 days to address this and give something back to us. and then after all the reviews are in and then we would probably be able to make a proper decision on it. Mr. Urciuoli stated, when all that stuff comes in we have to also digest. We don't know what it is we are going to find. I just want to kind of give you an idea that you might not get a decision next month. The reason we asked for the Long EAF is to get better expertise involved in this. They may come back with some additional concerns that we may ask you to address which the process goes on. So, you may get a decision next month and then again you may get just the next step further down the road. I just want to kind of caution you. Mr. Landolfi stated, knowing this letter by the County, do you feel that you adequately can handle the septic and so on? Mr. Durcan answered, yes. I also, when I took those forms to the County Health Dept. they indicated to me that, Mr. Marlow, basically their position on the EAF was that they would have no comment on it. They are just concerned witht he septic system and approval for the spetic system. I am prepared to do everything it takes to install a septic sytem because I can't get a C.O. for the building without the proper septic system. I can't get a C.O. without a fully approved septic system so I will do whatever Is necessary to bring in fill and extend the septic system to whatever is necessary. Mr. Urciuoli asked, when these various agencies give us the input back John also receives it? Ms. Berberich answered, I mail it. Mr. Urciuoli stated, as an example, say the Town Engineer says I don't like the septic system, he is going to know that before he comes next month. Which then we have to Page - 40 - December 23rd, 1986 forward it back to the Town Engineer again. That is the process because we are not of the capacity to make engineering judgements on the septic system. Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak. There was no one present. Mr. Cortellino made a motion to table this appeal. Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes. The motion was carried. Mr. Caballero read the next appeal: Appeal 4958, at the request of Larraine & Frank Hamlin, seeking a variance of Article IV §411.73 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for the issuance of a building permit on an undersized lot where the owner of said lot owns property adjoining the lot on property located on 10 Russell Road, and being Parcel 446259-04-652093, in the Town of Wappinger. Mr. Hamlin was present. Mr. Cortellino asked, this drainage easement, what is that comprised of? Mr. Hamlin answered, its 20 feet between the property that I formally owned and the lot that we are talking about. Mr. Cortellino asked, what I meant was an open ditch, a pipe? Mr. Hamlin answered, no, its just a piece of land. Mr. Cortellino asked, the land slopes towards it? Mr. Hamlin answered, there is a creek on one side and the whole parcel of land slopes towards the creek but the drainage ditch doesn't really go anywhere. Mr. Caballero asked, didn't we hear this before and we sent it for...? Ms. Berberich answered, whether it was R-20 or R-40. Mr. Gunderud stated, it is in the R-40 zone. I wrote a letter back to Mr. Hamlin.after your last meeting. At the time, the lot was in the R-20 district for many, many years, since 1963 to 1980. In 1980, zoning changed the district to R-40 so the district now is R-40. My letter of November 26th said, I didn't feel that it made any difference whether it was R-40 or R-20. The issue is really the point of the Zoning Ordinance says that if you have an undersized lot and you own property contiguous to it then you have to combine those lots to make a legal lot. Mr. Hamlin unfortunately was in the situation, as I pointed out in my letter, that he owned the lot next door initially and then he bought this undersized lot and apparantly he called the office to ask back in 1980 whether he could get a building permit for that. I am assuming that probably we didn't get the whole story. Either we didn't ask the right questions or he didn't tell us that he owned the lot next door. Normally if you or I had wanted to buy that lot from a realitor or whatever and we called the office we would have been told it is an existing lot and Page -41 - December 23rd, 1986 you would be qualified to get a building permit but in this case since Mr. Hamlin owned the lot next to it, and the way the Zoning Ordinance is written he is required to combine it and taking away the lot that existed for many, many years. That is why he is here, to get a variance from that provision of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Caballero asked, if I bought this lot from him? Mr. Gunderud answered, well not from him. Lets say initially because he owns the 2 of them know so he is stuck. Mr. Hamlin stated, no, I don't own them. I live in North Carolina. Mr. Gunderud stated, now you do, but a couple months ago.... If you had bought the lot back in 1979, so if you came along in 1979 and bought it from whoever was selling it at the time, yes you would have been able to get a building permit. Mr. Hirkala asked, you bought the small lot in 1979? Mr. Hamlin answered, yes. Mr. Caballero asked, but if I went to buy it now, as a separate lot and he sells me this lot. The problem now would be that because he owned for some period of time the 2 lots contiguous to each other he would have been required to combine those 2 lots. Because we had some other difficulty, you may remember before the Board we had the lot on Myers Corners Road and Monfort Road which had separate deeds to it, it was an undersized lot and it became a situation of whether we should give him permits on undersized lots. Since that time, working with the Town Attorney, we have changed the procedure and now if anybody comes in for a building permit for an undersized lot we require a title search of who owned the property all the way back to 1963 and if we find out that one person owned several lots contiguous to it then I can't issue a building permit because that person would have had to combine those, and I don't know how exactly this procedure is going to work out because if someone sold the lot 10 years ago and is now dead or living in Florida or gone out of the country I don't know how we are going to force somebody to combine the lots. That is the present procedure right now. Mr. Hirkala asked, when did you buy the house?. Mr. Hamlin answered, 12 years ago. Back in 1972 or 1973. Mr. Hirkala asked, you bought the hosue and the lot at the same time? Mr. Hamlin answered, no. The lot was owned by another women and we bought in 1979. We really just bought it, when we found out that it could be built on so that nobody would build on it to be very honest. When we sold our house, lot, we were still under the impression that we could sell this lot as a building lot and then when we did give it to real estate we found out from Hans that we couldn't because of this law which we knew nothing about. Mr. Hirkala asked, you sold the house. You don't own the property next to it? Mr. Hamlin answered, no. As I told Hans, if I had known I would have put the 20 feet. Mr. Caballero asked, so the original 1.5 acres that is owned by somebody else other than you know? Mr. Hamlin answered, yes. 9W Page -4 2 - December 23rd, 1986 Mr. Caballero asked, so you only own this lot? Mr. Hamlin answered, yes. Mr. Cortellino asked, when did you get rid of your house? Mr. Hamlin answered, November. Mr. Cortellino asked, and this was after this action started? Mr. Hamlin answered, a little before. Mr. Landolfi stated, he submitted this on October.20th. Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak either for or against this appeal. There was no one present. Mr. Hamlin stated, at the last meeting the immediate neighbor came in and had no objections to the lot being sold. Mr. Urciuoli asked, so we have an undersized lot then? Mr. Gunderud answered, yes. Mr. Caballero stated that he would entertain a motion. Mr. Landolfi stated, I make a motion that the variance be granted. Obviously there is a hardship and it is quite a unique hardship and since the property in question is, lets say, of no value without the variance I move we grant the variance. Mr. Urciuoli seconded the motion. Vote: Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye Mr. Urciuoli - aye The motion was carried. Mr. Caballero read the next appeal: Appeal #969, at the request of Joy & Isadore Erreich and June Visconti, seeking a Special Use Permit of Article IV, §445 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to permit and accessory apartment on property located on 13 Joan Lane, and being Parcel #6459-03- 122095, in the Town of Wappinger. June Viscontiand Joy Erreich was present. Ms. Visconti stated, we are here to ask for a Special Use Permit, accessory apartment. I would refer to a letter that we received October 27th from the Zoning Administrator I believe that you all have copies of it. I will take notice the second paragraph that says that I noted that your residence is to be occupied as having an accessory apartment. Page -43 - December 23rd, 1986 It was put in when the house was first built in 1978. At this time when we were made aware that there was a problem, we have rectified the problem which was, Mr. Landolfi was there today and saw, I also brought you pictures to show that the house is totally in conformance with our existing zoning ordinances. We are asking for this, we believe that we have complied with all of the criteria necessary to have an accessory apartment. Joy Erreich is my sister, so we are blood relatives. The apartment, there is no addition to this house. This house is exactly the same way as it was on December 16th, 1978 when we closed. It is a one family house, it is a raised ranch, having one door going in. It has a door off the family room, sliding glass doors off the family room and it has a sliding glass door off the dining room. Two separate entrances not observable from the street. We made the minimum size of the apartment which is 650 s/f, and is no larger than 35% of the habitable floor space of our dwelling. It has 5 bedrooms, which conforms to our ordinance. The minimum lot size, we are 1.3 acres of land. C.0 was issued in 1978, December 16th. Residence has off street parking for probably about 8 cars. We have a circular driveway and we have a blacktop side for additional cars that is on the side of the house. We have private water and sewer which has Board of Health approval since the say we moved in, has had no changed what so ever in any of the house. We are not after a building permit because we are not making any changes at all. We also have here a letter from our neighbor who, our house sits on the left on the cul de sac, on the right, if you were facing the house is a recreation area, pond, on the left is Mr. Fitzgerald's home. We also have been in contact with the people across the street, Mr. Vadin, they are away on vacation for Christmas. They said they will have a letter for us before the next public hearing. We also have, if all of you would like, the neighbors in the development would be more than happy to come down and—our Town Hall, they will give us all the letters we need because there is no change what so ever in the use of our house from day one. L Questions? Mr. Landolfi asked, is this like more for the mother/daughter versus just an accessory apartment since their is blood relatives there? I guess what I am saying is I am wondering if it would be advantagous to request what we call a mother/daughter apartment versus like just a accessory apartment since you qualify obviuosly since you are blood relatives. Mr. Gunderud stated, not really because that section of the ordinance is called accessory apartment. Mr. Landolfi stated, I understand that but what I am saying is so that, and I can't speak for the Board ....I am just saying, on behalf of the appellant since they are related. Mr. Caballero stated, that is the section. Mr. Gunderud stated, because that section specifically says it has to be father, mother, sister, brother or whatever.... Ms. Visconti stated, occupants must be mother, father, son, daughter, sister, grandparents, or grandchild. Mr. Caballero stated, that is the section we call mother/daughter. Ms. Visconti stated, one other thing I forgot to bring out is the fact that we all own the house. I own half that house and Joy and Isadore own the other half. That is our deed, that is how it is recorded, that is how it was sold, that is how our mortgage is read. We own the house. It is our principle residence which is another part of the ordinance. It says that both will be the principle residence, it is our principle residence. M Page -44- December 23rd, 1986 Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak either for or against this appeal. There was no one present. Mr. Caballero stated, I will entertain a motion that we send this to Planning. Mr. Urciuoli stated, I have some questions. Are we sending it as a mother/daughter? Mr. Caballero stated, yes, that is under the section. Mr.Urciuoli stated, because I want to know because as a straight accessory apartment I have alot of problems with it. Mr. Gunderud stated, it is an accessory apartment under §445. Mr. Caballero stated, which is the mother/daughter section. Mr. Gunderud stated, that doesn't mean that it could ever be rented out as a separate apartment, it is under that section and that section only allows blood realtives and all ]the criteria for mother/daughter. Mr. Urciuoli asked, for any reason June moves out it stops. Mr. Gunderud answered, absolutely, that is the section that it is under. Mr. Urciuoli stated, I don't know when we review this, now? Mr. Landolfi stated, no, it goes on to the Planning Board and then we get it back again. Mr. Urciuoli stated, I have a problem. I am looking at a couple of different things here and I heard June say in 1978 you moved in? Ms. Visconti answered, that is correct. Mr. Urciuoli asked, and it has been.. Ms. Visconti stated, nothing is changed and that is why I asked is it possible to waive having it go to the Planning Board since nothing has changed? Mr. Urciuoli asked, on one plan I am looking at wet bar, family room. Ms Visconti answered,that was submitted by the builder. Mr. Urciuoli asked, if nothing has changed, I am looking at a picture that shows a kitchen, a, what looks like a dishwasher, a sink, not a wet bar, kitchen cabinets, what looks like a whole, I assume a stove goes in there, obviously its not a wet bar type of thing. On another plan I am showing an office, a kitchen, dining room, how does an office in a mother/daughter accessory apartment fit in? IL Ms. Visconti answered, there is no more office. It was never an office, it was a den, first off that was a bedroom, its 2 bedrooms, it was my sons bedroom and my bedroom. My son went into the air force I put, I am in the insurance business, never had people come to the house, it was just for my own paperwork in the evening. That has since and Page -45-- December 23rd, 1986 subsequently been removed, it is now a bedroom again. So there is 2 bedrooms there, it always was 2 bedroom. In relation to your question regarding the wetbar and what is there now. There was some confusion in the beginning, we had the attorney, we had a builder, and those plans were not the plans that we originally were built with, thats why when it was brought to our attention that our house was in violation it was very shocking to us.and we rectified it immediately and we are here now to see that it is legally rectified. Mr. Urciuoli stated, wait a minute. What was it rectified to. It was rectified to the wetbar? Ms. Erreich stated, no. It was originally supposed to be a kitchen. That is how it was built,and that is the plans that was submitted. Mr. Urciuoli asked, and a C.O. was given to you as a kitchen? Ms. Visconti answered, that is correct. Mrs. Erreich answered, that is our impression. Mr. Urciuoli stated, you have to understand why we have to be very careful because of where you stand and where we have been kind of a thing so its got to be handled..... Ms. Visconti answered, whatever we have to do. Mr. Urciuoli asked Mr. Gunderud, what does the C.O. say. Is there anything that we have... , fir►` Ms. Visconti stated, single, one family house. Mr. Caballero asked, and it received a C.O. at that time? Mr. Gunderud answered, yes it did. Mr. Landolfi asked, who was the Building Inspector? Mr. Gunderud answered, Bob Ruit. He signed the C.O.. Mr. Urciuoli stated, I don't know how the wetbar..... Mr. Caballero stated, basically there was a kitchen there. There was a kitchen there and it was taken out when they found themselves to be in violation. Now they are seeking the mother/daughter status and if it is approved then the kitchen goes back in. In our ordinance what makes it a kitchen is the cooking... Ms. Visconti stated, the stove is out. Mr. Landolfi stated, I saw the stove out. The only thing I think has to be done, I think she has met all the requirements except the posting. Ms. Visconti stated, the posting is there. IL Mr. Caballero stated, there is a letter here that it has been posted for 10 days. What we generally do in all of these cases is send it to the Planning Board to look at and make some suggestions to us, the Zoning Board of Appeals. Did I hear you say that you would like to have that waived? Page -46- December 23rd, 1986 Ms. Visconti stated, I believe under the zoning, the paragraph that I read said, maybe I am mistaken that is why I am asking, that it is referred in the event that you are making changes. We are not making any changes. Nothing, no additions, no square footage, no we are in no need of building permits. Mr. Cortellino stated, it goes to the Planning Board, lets say if you had a single family and now you are going to do something internal changes to make... Mr. Caballero stated, I disagree. We send it to the Planning Board on the basis that now they are going to be possibly 2 separate families and more cars parked in the driveway, screening, etc... Standing where I am standing and June, I think it would be the best thing to send it to the Planning Board, address the Planning Board so they can give us their critique and from there on we can make a decision.. Mr. Landolfi stated, I think that is the way to protect everyone here. I don't forsee any problems to be very honest to you. Mr. Urciuoli stated, when it comes back to us I would like to have anything pertaining to the original C.O.., Hans. Whether it references the kitchen or wetbar or what it is that the C.O., if there is anything that is made reference to that. Mr. Cortellino asked, are you the first people in this house? You had a buyers contract. The buyers contract should have said kitchen instead of wetbar. Ms. Visconti stated, I am sure that, I don't know, when we sat down with the builder we picked out the colors for our kitchen and everything else but I don't believe that we have those papers. I will look to see. But at this point they are really irrelevant. Mr. Caballero stated, for the record I agree with June. They are irrelevant. They found themselves to be in violation, they have rectified the violation and now they are coming in before us to do it properly and I think there is nothing wrong with the way it is being handled. Mr. Landolfi made a motion to refer this to the Planning Board. Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion. Vote: Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye Mr. Urciuoli - aye The motion was carried. Ms. Visconti asked, it says that the next meeting of the Planning Board is January 12th, after that time, what is the procedure, you set a public hearing when you get those comments back? Ms. Berberich stated, when it comes back its a public hearing. Ms. Vosconti asked, that is when I send out certified letters? Is it sufficient since %r' I already have a letter and I get another letter from the fella across the street you still want the proof that I sent them additional certified letters even though they gave me voluntary letters? Mr. Landolfi stated, you have to have that. Page -47- December 23, 1986 Mr. Caballero stated, mailed to them. Thats a law that you as a Town Board member instituted recently. Mr. Caballero stated, even though it is the last meeting of this year we went along without a vice-chairman because I expected to be at every one of the meetings but I do need, as of today, a vice-chairman. Do I have a volunteer. Joseph, would you accept the vice -chairmanship? Mr. Landolfi answered, I would rather not. Mr. Hirkala stated, if nobody else takes it I will take it. I would rather not. I think Joe has the experience. Mr. Cortellino made a motion to appoint Mr. Hirkala as Vice -Chairman. Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes.. The motion was carried. Mr. Caballero stated, we have a letter from the people who have the problem with the dog. What time factor did we give them. Mr. Gunderud answered, 3 months. Mr. Caballero asked, can we extend that to a year? Mr. Landolfi stated, here is the problem with the year.though, we have to understand now, the neighbors were in complaining now so, we don't want to put ourselves in bad light. Mr. Caballero stated, Hans your opinion. Have you gotten complaints from other neighbors now again? Mr. Gunderud stated, I think they should be allowed to keep the dog until it dies. Mr. Landolfi stated, how about if we give them 9 months on top of that and that would be one year? Mr. Caballero asked for a motion,from the Board that we add an additional 9 months time period due to the curcumstances to allow them to place the dog. Mr. Gunderud stated, the problem is that if you extend it then everytime, I have 3 cats coming to you very soon, and what are you going to do then? Mr. Landolfi stated, I make a motion that we give them 9 months which will be a full year. Mr. Hirkala seconded the motion. Vote: »_ Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Urciuoli - aye The motion was carried. Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye Page - 48 - December 23rd, 1986 Mr. Landolfi made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes. The motion was carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 P.M.. lb Respectfully submitted, iu,#,- d-- - &- f�s l Linda Berberich, Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals